[TVOW]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[rerevisionist]

Good question (even if the wording is a bit naff....)

Looking back, all the discussions/ hysteria about nukes seem distinctly odd.

For example, something that was often said was "We'll all go together when we go" [Tom Lehrer] or "Nuclear weapons mean that all must live or all must die" [Bertrand Russell]. And yet it seems obvious that groups of people without nuclear weapons could be bombed with impunity.

There must have been doubts about the technology, too. In the days before microelectronics and satellites, the actual precision of ICBMs must have been low - though information on this sort of thing would not be public.

Then there was the business of 'underground' tests; how could ever-increasingly large explosions be confined underground?

And of course there was the claim that nuclear weapons 'prevented war in Europe', I suppose a way to evade the fact there were dozens of wars going onin the world despite the supposed umbrellas of nuclear weapons.

In Europe, there was the 'nuclear umbrella' idea of protection by the USA. This of course prevented any serious analysis of the US-Europe and US/world situations.

My feeling is the thing was definitely 'evil' - it wasted money on a colossal scale, prevented thought, scared people, provided an excuse for wars, provided an excuse for atrocities - since nuclear war would be worse, and generally degraded civilisation. However I have to say I don't have a general logical way to analyse the situation and all its options.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The first result of the hoax was the formation of the United Nations.

[NUKELIES]

The argument that nuclear weapons prevent war may also be made just the same for the nuclear weapons hoax

Either way it's a protection racket.

[rerevisionist]

@mooninquirer - I agree an assessment of modern wars is long, long overdue. It's rather pathetic that departments of Peace Studies make no attempt in this direction, as they are cowardly and 'politically correct'. I remember talking to the head of 'Peace Studies' at Bradford, a Quaker, and I asked him what his views were on atrocities, such as mass rape, by Americans in Vietnam. He of course evaded the question. But as long as there are restrictions on free speech and inquiry, there will be no proper assessment. Part of the problem of course is that some parties (notably weapons makers) benefit. The only steps I know of in this direction were by Lewis Fry Richardson on 'deadly quarrels', taken up by Quincy Wright.

However, if we accept that nuclear weapons aren't after all a deadly peril [just as with AIDS, climate change etc] we must mentally re-file nuke fraud as just another fraud, in my opinion almost certainly Jewish. And this means opening the can of worms - or, rather, the entire store of cans of worms - of the net influence of Jews. IF the English Civil War, American Revolution, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam etc down to the present day were levered by Jewish influence, the POSSIBILITY must be there that the last few centuries MAY OTHERWISE have been relatively peaceful over that interval. This would make Jews the most malevolent group that have ever lived - if the total deaths, harm, and total of frauds were estimated, and divided by population number, gives an index of malevolence, on the same statistical lines that Richardson and Wright started to sketch out, then maybe some sort of measure could be obtained. I'm sure there would be surprise candidates too (such as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo; maybe the Romans of the Roman Empire; very possibly Muslims).

There was a report published in June 2006, in Britain, by an official Ministry of Defence 'Think Tank' under Rear Admiral Parry on 70 diaspora groups in Britain - predicting Balkan style collapse of western Europe in 5 to 7 years as a result of conflicts. Parry may have been sacked, as he seems no longer to head that think tank. Anyway 5 to 7 years means 2011-2013. (This is Nick Griffin in mid-2007 talking about the report:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgzgMVub0Xs ). The 'Think Tank' is I think made of of 6 people from the each of British Army, Navy, and RAF, and 6 or so civil servants. Whether their collective wisdom amounts to much, I have to doubt, unfortunately. It's hard to imagine them debating nuclear weapons.

So I hope some academic departments work on this sort of thing, but at present there's zero chance in the 'west'. It's conceivable that China or India might produce new thought on these lines. But judging by my own observations on 'revisionist' behaviour, there's almost no chance that women or blacks will produce anything useful, though.